Credit union showed father details of son’s loans, court hears

A Garda has claimed his credit union showed his confidential financial statements to his father and indicated his loans were in trouble.

Garda Kevin Martin, a member of St Raphael's Garda Credit Union, claims his data protection rights were breached when a representative of the credit union turned up at his father's home and showed him the documents.

Mr Martin, based in Dublin, is seeking an order that the Data Protection Commissioner conduct an oral hearing into his complaint.

Jim O’Callaghan was granted leave by Mr Justice Séamus Noonan yesterday for a judicial review of the commissioner’s refusal of an oral hearing. The application was made ex parte (only one side was represented).

In his proceedings, Mr Martin said he has been a member of St Raphael’s since 2004. In January 2012, the credit union wrote to him asking him to contact one of its representatives in relation to his loan account and he made a number of efforts to contact the representative without success, he said.

In March 2012, he emailed the person he was trying to contact and received a “read receipt”, indicating the email had been read, it is claimed.

‘In trouble’

This was the last communication he received until he received a phone call from his father saying a man from the credit union had called to his father’s house asking to speak to Mr Martin about his loans which were “in trouble”.

It is claimed the man said Mr Martin’s loans were substantial and had shown his father a folder containing his financial statements. The man also claimed Mr Martin had ignored the credit union’s attempts to contact him.

Definitive opinion

Mr Martin complained to the Data Protection Commissioner, who contacted St Raphael’s. The commissioner told the garda’s solicitor it was not possible for the commissioner to form a definitive opinion on the complaint because it concerned an allegation of a verbal disclosure. It would be impossible to prove personal information was unfairly disclosed, the commissioner said.

Mr Martin argued the commissioner should conduct an oral hearing so a fuller investigation of his complaint could be carried out.

Mr O’Callaghan, for Mr Martin, said it was their case an oral hearing should be conducted in circumstances where there is an issue of fact in dispute and which can only be resolved by hearing the parties involved. This matter could be determined through a short oral hearing, he said.

It is claimed, in refusing a hearing, the commissioner had breached Mr Martin’s rights to natural and constitutional justice.

The matter comes back before the court next month.